Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1363 (PNJ)

Harbinderjit Singh @ Harjinder Singh @ Harvinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab

2014-09-29

RAJAN GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajan Gupta, J. - Petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order Annexure P6 dated 06.11.2009 passed by respondent no. 1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. He submits that, order passed by Financial Commissioner is cryptic and unsustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, valuable land abutting the road should have been divided proportionately among the co-sharers. Thus, impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. Plea has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and 5. According to him, pursuant to order passed by Financial Commissioner, revenue authorities have duly implemented the order passed by A.C. Ist Grade on 14.09.1999. Respondents have been shown as owners of their respective land in the jamabandi for the year 2004-05. According to him, partition is in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Brief factual background of the case is that on an application being moved by petitioners before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, partition of land measuring 137 kanals and 1 marla situated in village Kadoopur was initiated. Thereafter, respondents contested the application and filed written statement. On 26.04.1999 mode of partition was proposed and same was sanctioned on 04.06.1999. According to sanctioned mode of partition, aforesaid land was situated in three villages and parties were in possession of their respective shares. Thereafter, objections were called for. Vide order dated 14.09.1999 A.C. Ist Grade after considering the objections ordered final partition. Against the order passed by A.C. Ist Grade, appeal was preferred by respondents no. 6 and 7 which was dismissed by the Collector. Revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Said authority after considering entire facts and circumstances set-aside the order of Collector and remanded the matter to A.C. Ist Grade to decide afresh keeping in view the quality of land sought to be partitioned. Against the said order, respondents no. 4 and 5 filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. Vide order dated 06.11.2009, Financial Commissioner accepted the petition and set-aside the order passed by Commissioner holding that A.C. Ist Grade and Collector had passed the orders after visiting the spot and in accordance with law. Hence, instant writ petition. 6. Mode of partition in this case was sanctioned on 04.06.1999. Vide order dated 06.11.2009, Financial Commissioner accepted the petition and set-aside the order passed by Commissioner holding that A.C. Ist Grade and Collector had passed the orders after visiting the spot and in accordance with law. Hence, instant writ petition. 6. Mode of partition in this case was sanctioned on 04.06.1999. A perusal of order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 14.09.1999 shows that parties had agreed that partition would be effected keeping the possession intact. No challenge was ever made to this order. Mode of partition, thus, attained finality. It appears that during proceedings, Collector visited the spot in the presence of parties and other respectables of the village and sanctioned the partition. Matter ultimately came up before the Financial Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction. Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that authorities below had sanctioned the partition in presence of the parties after visiting the spot. He, thus, set aside the order passed by Commissioner and upheld the order passed by Collector and Assistant Collector. Since the partition proceedings pertain to year 1999, this court has examined the case on merits also. Available record and naksha 'Zeem', Annexure P-2A, show that land has been equally divided among the co-sharers. It appears that in view of triangular nature of respective portions provided to co-sharers, it was not possible to provide land abutting the main road to both the parties. There is nothing to show that there has been any miscarriage of justice as a result of the partition as carried out. A plea was raised before this court that Act does not envisage appeal against the final order of partition. This argument deserves to be rejected in view of fact that Financial Commissioner ultimately considered the entire issue in his revisional jurisdiction under section 16 of Act and set aside the order of Commissioner. In judgment reported as Amar Khan and ors. v. State of Punjab, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 741, it has been held that apart from inherent jurisdiction of the High court, Financial Commissioner is competent to entertain revision petition even against preparation of sanad taksim. This court finds no infirmity with the order passed by Financial Commissioner. Partition proceedings cannot be allowed to linger on endlessly. Thus, writ petition is hereby dismissed.